Quite the opposite. You were the one who brought up how many words they wrote, when we can just look at the glaringly obviously results which were there solar city failed.
I can just point to that huge failure that we can see right now.
?
You still haven't pointed out a single thing the judge got wrong, and literally just relied on a bare assertion of your feelings about how it went later, which is, of course, almost totally irrelevant to whether it was fair at the time of purchase
Companies eventually failing does not mean they were bad deals at the time (or even a bad deal later). Not everything succeeds.
The question is not "did anyone successfully predict the future" or even "was it a good thing to buy" but instead "was it a fair price and a fair deal at the time they bought it". So i have no idea why you keep bringing up what happened later as it it's relevant at all, and won't tell anyone why you think it's relevant to the past.
Given you refuse to read and cite a single thing that the judge actually got wrong and keep citing the end of solar city as if this somehow changes the past about whether it was fair deal for a fair price at the time, it's hard to believe you are really doing this in good faith, so i'm out.
(FWIW - i was the first solarcity customer in maryland, and given my experience i certainly have no love for them, but you aren't presenting any coherent argument here)
> They issued a 127 page
I am sure they wrote a lot of words. But it kinda seems like they were wrong given the evidence.
Solar city shut down. The evidence shows that it was a poor acquisition.